U.S. diplomat tells different Benghazi story

  • Article by: Ernesto Londoo , Washington Post
  • Updated: May 6, 2013 - 9:58 PM

It’s certain to reignite debate over whether four slain Americans could have been helped.

  • 10
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 10 of 10
jeddelohMay. 6, 1310:27 PM

You mean to tell me that Obama and Hiliary lied to the American people for their own gain? What is the world of politics becoming? To think that the American press, the people who are to report the truth to us- FACTS, pushed this under the rug at election time to secure a victory for their GUY!!! I feel like I'm living in a country that I don't even know anymore.

23
12
sek2undrstndMay. 6, 1310:55 PM

We still don't know why Ambassador Stevens was in a terribly dangerous location in Libya with only two bodyguards when there were more personnel available to travel with him and protect him. Either he felt more secure in Libya because of his extensive background in the country or because he had made this trip before to meet with a supposedly Al-Queda informant and, therefore, felt more comfortable. I only wish we would find out more about the connection between the Al-Queda informant and their role in luring Ambassador Stevens into a trap which cost four American lives.

16
2
johnam1May. 7, 13 6:09 AM

Sometimes - good men are hard to find. We found one here.

9
4
supervon2May. 7, 13 6:41 AM

Amazing that Liberals should create a story to fit their version of the outcome. Just think-you trust them to make laws in YOUR behalf or for their lawyer and union buddies? And guess what? The clueless media supports these action blindly.

14
7
PassOut76May. 7, 13 7:05 AM

This will re-ignite the debate? For those of us paying attention this story is old news. It was obviously a terrorist attack from the start. Anyone who pays attention had their jaws drop when Ms. Rice lied on the Sunday morning talk shows. Journalists who dropped this story should have their credentials pulled. The real question of why was Amb. Stevens there in a non-safe place (the question of not enough security is a bold-faced lie) is still unanswered. There was a nearby security team ready to go within the hour but were told to stand-down.

9
3
tomstromieMay. 7, 13 7:18 AM

Why did it take so long for this testimony to come foreward?

8
2
russ999May. 7, 13 7:36 AM

so where is the different story from this headline? It's what already has been testified to. Air cover was considered to be arriving too late and not sent. Whether that was right thing or not is debatable but it was the chain of commands decision at the time.

3
6
mgtwinsfan1987May. 7, 13 8:10 AM

I can't see the issue. When you read the whole story, the air cover would not have come in time due to the inability to get planes into the air. How is that the administration's problem?

3
1
jackster4May. 7, 1311:31 AM

Did anyone notice that HRC's name wasn't in this story? Is anyone suprised the Washington Post would ignore her responsibilty in this fiasco? If this was the Bush administration and Condi Rice was in charge what would the focus of the main stream media be in this story? Oh well, "what difference does it make" anyway?

0
3
hjlazniMay. 7, 1312:43 PM

mgtwinsfan1987 "I can't see the issue. When you read the whole story, the air cover would not have come in time due to the inability to get planes into the air. How is that the administration's problem?" Is our military budget too low?

2
2
  • 1 - 10 of 10

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT